Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Free Speech
Clarence Brandenburg, standing with a burning cross in the background, stated at a public rally that "if our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken." ("Brandenburg v Ohio") This statement led to the creation of the Brandenburg Test, a legal test to decide whether or not specific speech was guaranteed protection under the Constitution. The Court ultimately decided that in order for the government to prohibit speech, that speech must intend to incite imminent action, use words that could produce imminent action, and openly urge incitement. In other words, the speech must intent, and produce, immediate illegal action.
This is a good standard for the protection of speech because it prohibits any speech which would start violent or illegal...
There is no need to currently add anything to it because when it comes to speech, it is up to the government to prove that speech is dangerous, not that it may become dangerous at some unknown future time. The principle of imminent action is the only thing that justifies restricting freedom of speech; and the freedom of speech is one of the most important aspects of American life.
Part 2
The Supreme Court of the United States has developed a "forum-based" approach to evaluating First Amendment restrictions. This means that the forum were the speech is taking place can be included in deciding whether or not that speech is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Certain places are provided with more protections in regards to people exercising their First Amendment rights. The…
Works Cited
"Brandenburg v Ohio: Supreme Court of the United States 395 U.S. 444
June 9, 1969." Exploring Constitutional Law. Web. 26 Nov. 2012.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incitement.htm
"[T]here remains a distinction between autonomy, the ability to think for oneself, and self-expression, the communicating of one's thoughts to others. Both are important components of our interest in free speech" (Lichtenberg, 336). Still some believe that any infringement upon the media would diminish the amount of true information disseminated into society. Truth, though, is filled with ambiguity and is intangible -- the "truth" of the media story is based
Freedom of Speech History of Case Gitlow v. New York Gitlow v.New York was a decision that was made by the supreme court of the United States on June 8, 1925 which ruled that the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States extended the reach of limitations of the federal government authority that that had been set in the First amendment. The specific provisions were protection of freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is a human right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Yet, in the worlds of public and private employment, employers have some limited rights with regard to the things their employees can say. These generally differ for public and private employees. The main basis for this difference is the fact that public employees offer their services to the Government, which in turn is to act in
Freedom of Speech and Art "Freedom of speech' is a fundamental right of citizens of the United States. The constitution grants complete freedom of speech under the First Amendment which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for
Freedom of Speech In 1776, the United States Constitution was signed to protect the freedoms of every American and to solidify the rights that so many were currently fighting for. It was the government that implemented ways for everyone to have equal rights to express what ever they deemed appropriate without the fear of there being repercussions for their actions. That is no longer the case. The government now, instead of
Which is the better course of action, Lawrence might ask himself. Should we censor the Westboro Baptist Church and forbid them their right to free speech, or should we allow them to express their wacky, and perhaps injurious views, and fight back with words of compassion, caring, and support. Just because we would like to make a knee-jerk, reactionary law and censor them does not make it the right